Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 


	O/TAXAP/128/2010
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


 


 


TAX
APPEAL  No 128 of 2010
 


 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

 

			
		
	

 

================================================================
 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

COMMISSIONER
			OF INCOME TAX - III....Appellant(s)
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 Versus
			
			
		
	
	 
		 
			 

RAJ
			KA DESIGN PVT. LTD.....Opponent(s)
		
	

 

================================================================
 

Appearance:
 

MR
MR BHATT, SR. ADV. with MRS MAUNA M BHATT as ADVOCATE for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
 

None
for the Respondent
 

================================================================
 

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

and
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date
: 14/06/2011
 


 

 


ORAL
ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 4.9.2009 raising following questions for our consideration:-

"[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs.15,31,581/- made on account of Revenue Expenses for Repairs to building?

[B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance (@50%) of Rs.91,722/- made on account of Earth Quake Relief Fund Expenses?"

2. First question pertains to expenditure of Rs.15,31,581/- directed by the Assessing Officer to be treated as capital expenditure. The assessee carried the issue in appeal. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee only in part and restricted the addition of Rs.13,48,336/-. The issue went further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee in its entirety. Thereupon the Revenue has approached this Court in the present Tax Appeal.

3. From the impugned judgment we find that the assessee had to incur certain expenditure towards repair of its building including replacing of the floor tiles, re-plastering of the building and compound wall, replacing broken doors, windows and glass, replacing electric wiring, assuring to conform to the standards specified in various statues such as Factories Act and Pollution Control Act as well as to meet with the requirements imposed by the foreign buyers. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the opinion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for renovation should be treated as revenue. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer as sustained by the CIT(Appeals).

4. Though we agree with the learned counsel that the Tribunal did not examine the question whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee resulted into enduring benefits, in the instant case, when the Tribunal found that the assessee had compulsorily to incur such expenditure to conform to the statutory requirements contained in Factories Act, Pollution Control Act etc., we do not find any reason to interfere with the view of the Tribunal.

5. With respect to second question we find that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.91,722/- expended towards Earth Quake Relief Fund. The assessee could not furnish full proof and details of such expenses. Thereupon, the CIT(Appeals) reduced the relief to 50% of the claim made. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT(Appeals). Entire issue is based on facts. It does not give rise to any question of law.

6. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.

(Akil Kureshi, J. ) (Ms. Sonia Gokani, J. ) sudhir Page 3 of 3     Top